Clinton balanced the budget. Bush blew it. The economy sucked, sure. He still blew it. When you're in a hole, you stop digging.

Moral relativism is good, or maybe it's not.

The eight European leaders that endorsed the Administration's position on Iraq made their views known through a solicited editorial in the Wall Street Journal. What makes this interesting is that the Journal (and many, many others) then turned around and reported it as news. Of course, this happens all the time on shows like Meet the Press and Face the Nation. What's interesting is that it doesn't pass the smell test, for no other reason than because of the importance of the story, it highlights the manufacturing of news. The LA Times ran a piece about this episode, and refers vaguely to ethical questions. The allusions were vague, of course, because there aren't any ethical questions. It's just journalists finding a story and making absolutely sure that they reap the rewards.

We will never forget them this morning as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.

- Peggy Noonan

In spite of my politics, I really like Peggy Noonan. I'm willing to overlook her Republican apologism and recommend her recommendations to Bush for his State of the Union tomorrow. She's whipsmart, plainly admits to the weaknesses of the Administration, and can turn a phrase to boot.

Apparently, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ate through an $8 billion surplus, and is now tapped out. The PBGC was created in 1974 to make sure that people could get their pensions even if a company goes el-busto. That's 44 million retirees who are now praying that their pension fund doesn't crack open. Basically, the PBGC got trapped between low interest rates and the crappy stock market. Here's the interest part: how to fix it. Companies pay premiums to insure their pensions through the PBGC. The solvent companies don't want to have to pay out for the invsolvent ones, so it'll be a hard sell to get the premiums raised. The insolvent companies can't fix it, obviously. The Erisa Industry Committee, who lobbies for the biggest participants, thinks that this will pass and that the $800M is premiums each year is a good "buffer." I don't know how the premiums became a buffer -- that's like putting groceries on your credit card. One solution is to raise premiums based on the riskiness of the contributing company's pension fund. This makes me ask: why weren't we doing that in the first place?